The reason that the noses look so much alike is the same reason that new autos tend to look alike, namely, physics. As both the 787 and the A350 are maximized to cruise at .85 mach and the fact that both fuselage cross sections are nearly circular, it is just engineering, not copying. You might as well say they copied the look of the vertical stabilizers or the engine nacelles.

The big difference is in the mix of materials. The 787 (contrary to the article) has a larger percentage of composite materials that are spun in place into complete sections called "barrels." This means there is a huge decrease in the amount of individual parts and the associated fasteners. The A350, by contrast, has sections that are built-up in a more traditional style utilizing composites, titanium and LiAl alloys. Look closely at photos of the two aircraft and you will notice the absolute lack of fasteners on the 787 skin. Compare that to the photo of the A350 nose section. I have stood next to a 787 and it looks like a giant model airplane, smooth and sleek. Time will tell which one is "better" I think the market has plenty of room for both.

There could be bias but I see an analyzed response. Why make another giant jetliner, that is bigger than than the 787 and 777, and make it compete with them? Airlines these days are having enough trouble filling seats, so why make a jet with more to fill? I feel it would be more economic making a long range fuel efficient small load aircraft.